1. Attitude: of all the endorsers, Mary is the only one who is rude, terse, and invasive. She interrupts the store manager with a sound-check type mic squeal–from ATOP a restaurant table. Leno, Salma and Beckham have sweet, fun dispositions–and are ALL at the counter, like normal people. Mary appears out of nowwhere, mad for no reason, over the contents of a chicken wrap, which she proceeds to outline in a song where she’s not so much singing as belting.

2. Selling the unhealthiest item of them all: The statistics around heart disease, obesity, diabetes and hypertension are downright catastrophic for African Americans, especially Black women, who relate directly to Mary. Unlike Leno and Hayek, who get to sell choices that include a smoothie and a salad, she is selling one product: the fried chicken wrap. This is not just stereotypical. It is the use of her well-constructed and hard-won brand to sell Burger King’s least healthy offering to her core audience. I almost wish there was a “please eat responsibly” tag at the end like alcohol ads have. I understand that chicken needs to be advertised like any other product, and that African Americans will do it, from known stars like MC Hammer for KFC to working actors like the Popeye’s pitchwoman. This one-note execution misses a huge opportunity for Mary to offer (or exercise) choice, which is more problematic than the selling of chicken in general.

3. Use/Misuse/(Abuse?) of Talent: Salma Hayek gets to showcase her versatility as an actor; humorous, sultry, even nerdy. Leno gets to be his snarky self, but remains in control throughout his spot, down to literally driving through the location while his Magical Negro holds his meal.

(Oh you didn’t get the memo? Magical Negroes don’t need food; they have their consciences to sustain them and the members of the dominant group they accommodate).

David Beckham doesn’t have to use his talent as an athlete at all! No soccer gear, no kicking a ball at the counter. He gets to be gorgeous and hypnotic for men and women alike. Mary? She has to sing her way through the commercial after busting in on it.

She doesn’t get to be her witty, honest, wise-beyond-her-years, confident self. She doesn’t even get to perform before a throng of an audience in the location’s parking lot block-party style. She’s got a crowd of about five halfway enjoying the song–because it’s terrible. Where was the well-crafted song about this product, written and or produced by anyone from Pharrell to Stevie Wonder? This whole scene flies directly in the face of Blige’s power and appeal. Speaking of power and appeal:

4. Poor positioning: this ad makes Mary look out of place, uncool, desperate. Attributes I would have been hard pressed to associate with her until now. You mean to tell me that wide, gray Jay Leno looks cooler than MJB, the *only* woman who can say she’s sung with Biggie and Bono, in this campaign?

Mary J. Blige has been a great pitchwoman in several categories: beauty (Carol’s Daughter), automotive (Chevy), and telecom (T-Mobile). All very stylish, elegant representations of a woman who knows and respects herself–and demands as much from the world. All with great uses of her own recorded music; no tired awkward jingles. This commercial feels like something an artist does to get back in the game–but she’s already at the top of hers.

As someone who has written commercial campaigns and done shoots with Beyonce’, Lauryn Hill, and Queen Latifah, I can’t see any of them positioning themselves similarly in a commercial at the heights of their careers and brand value to a corporation. This is not to say they were not pitchwomen: Latifah voiced Pizza Hut commercials and is a Cover Girl. Lauryn Hill wore Levi’s throughout her world tour for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Beyonce’ shook her booty for Pepsi and DirecTV. But all of these moves had a context and ultimately made them look good–or at least like they were in control. Artists at this level shut down creative like this at script phase. This move by Mary has me scratching and shaking my head.

5. Not A Good (Style) Look: A 20-year veteran of music, Mary J. Blige is well beyond style missteps. She has set innumerable style trends, from combat boots in the ’90s to blond wigs in the new millennium. She gave women permission to flaunt their tattoos, bare a gold-capped tooth, uncover facial scars–and still be beautiful.

She made round-the way girls feel like high fashion shades and luxurious apparel was their birthright.

So why–and I want to be diplomatic here because I adore and am inspired by Mary–why is Mary calling to mind wardrobe from the musical Grease in 2012? I honestly thought this was a spoof when I saw it for the first time, largely because of her wardrobe and hair. Mary is a maven, posing at the intersection of street and couture. Except in this commercial.

These observations raise a larger issue: the tone-deaf representation of Black women in advertising. The perpetuation of the stank, sassy, abrasive but entertaining ‘soul sista’ doesn’t reflect who Black women really are: women concerned about their health; parents making food choices for their children; consumers who spend with brands that understand and connect authentically with them. Had Mary outlined the choices from the menu and chosen the chicken wrap from the drive-through in her Maybach, then hummed with joy at the taste of it, I might not be so salty.

Burger King and Mary J. Blige missed a grand opportunity for an #AdWIN here.

An offensive, incendiary ad went up in Manhattan this week targeting the wombs of Black women. I was not alone in my anger at the ad; media personality and recording artist Free shared my upset. She invited me to provide some analysis on the ad to take the discussion on twitter beyond the emotional reactions the ad sparked. Below is what she posted at Freesworld.com. I’d love to get your thoughts here as well.

Here’s the ad:

No, your eyes do not deceive you.

****

Free,

I have been in advertising and marketing communications for over 12 years. As a writer of numerous campaigns across categories from pro-social to entertainment, I understand the impact words and images are designed to make in the form of advertising. I want to examine all that is wrong with this ad:

Copy: “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” The headline is designed to grab your attention. It certainly does that—but it also maligns African American expectant mothers and infers that the Black female body is toxic and to be feared, when in fact the womb is the seminal, most natural place in the world for any child of any mother. Now Black women’s wombs are more dangerous than urban streets, than corrupt police, than semi-automatic weapons, than drugs?! The headline seems to work counter to the overall message, which is that they want to prevent abortions. If that’s so, then what’s so scary about a pregnant Black woman? Ohhh, the fact that she might be in control of her own reproductive system; that she would make an informed choice of her own volition. Now I get it.

Imagery: Instead of seeing a mature pregnant woman, or even an infant, we are presented with an adorable young African-American girl who looks to be under the age of 8. What is this ad’s image saying? That the child is also dangerous as the outcome of a Black woman giving birth? That she is the owner of the dangerous womb and sexually active, (which objectifies and sexualizes her in a way that is totally inappropriate)? Or is it intended to make a woman considering terminating a pregnancy rethink it if she sees a cute little girl that her embryo could become? In my view, this cute girl is meant to make me look and say “awww, how cute!” and then read the whole ad. Any answer occurs for me as a ploy. More abuse of the black female image.

But what if this woman was raped? What if her pregnancy is the result of incest? What if the condom just broke, or she’s simply not prepared emotionally or financially to bring a child into the world? What if the embryo has genetic abnormalities the mother is not able or willing to manage? Much more goes into this decision than interest groups and politicians tend to admit or accept.

A woman’s right to choose is under a full-blown assault in America right now. From talk of overturning Roe v. Wade, to Republicans trying to redefine “rape” in legislation to the Senate voting to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the pendulum is dangerously close to swinging back to hangers in dark alleys or interstate drives in the dead of night for illegal procedures. Instead of offensive and insensitive ads for shock value, why wouldn’t ThatsAbortion.com share options for pregnant women that involve going full term? Present the option of surrogacy, or offering the child for adoption instead of vilifying the same womb that creates life. Or, sing the praises of abstinence or safe sex. All that is too complicated; it’s easier to slap a nasty headline on a sweet image and generate some buzz. If women of color are terminating at disproportionate rates, a closer look at all the factors that contribute to this should be examined. All women deserve to know what those factors are.

ThatsAbortion.com gets an Ad FAIL from me for race-baiting with their advertising.